Bonds & Interest Rates

How Stupid Do You Have To Be To Let This Happen?

imagesThe European Pension Crisis – Ed

Europe is the birthplace of Western civilization and the source of most of the trends and bodies of knowledge that define modernity. The average European speaks several languages versus sometimes less than one for Americans. They are, in short, a well-schooled people with vast accumulated wisdom. 

So how do we explain this: After World War II most European countries set up generous entitlement systems including government pensions designed to offer dignified retirements to citizens who had worked hard and paid taxes and obeyed the rules for a lifetime. BUT they didn’t bother putting anything aside for the inevitable — and mathematically predictable — retirement of the immense baby boomer generation. Here’s an excerpt from a recent Wall Street Journal article outlining the problem: 

Europe Faces Pension Predicament

State-funded pensions are at the heart of Europe’s social-welfare model, insulating people from extreme poverty in old age. Most European countries have set aside almost nothing to pay these benefits, simply funding them each year out of tax revenue. Now, European countries face a demographic tsunami, in the form of a growing mismatch between low birthrates and high longevity, for which few are prepared.

Europe’s population of pensioners, already the largest in the world, continues to grow. Looking at Europeans 65 or older who aren’t working, there are 42 for every 100 workers, and this will rise to 65 per 100 by 2060, the European Union’s data agency says. By comparison, the U.S. has 24 nonworking people 65 or over per 100 workers.

“Western European governments are close to bankruptcy because of the pension time bomb,” said Roy Stockell, head of asset management at Ernst & Young. “We have so many baby boomers moving into retirement [with] the expectation that the government will provide.”

The demographic squeeze could be eased by the influx of more than a million migrants in the past year. If many of them eventually join the working population, the result could be increased tax revenue to keep the pension model afloat. Before migrants are even given the right to work, however, they require housing, food, education and medical treatment. Their arrival will have effects on public finances that officials have only started to assess.

A Growing Mismatch
The pension squeeze doesn’t follow the familiar battle lines of the eurozone crisis, which pits Europe’s more prosperous north against a higher-spending, deeply indebted south. Some of the governments facing the toughest demographic challenges, such as Austria and Slovenia, have been among those most critical of Greece.

Germans, meanwhile, “are promoting fiscal rules in Spain and other countries, but we are softening the pension rules” at home, said Christoph Müller, a German academic who advises the EU on pension statistics. He pointed to a recent change allowing some workers to collect benefits two years early, at 63. A German labor ministry spokesman called that “a very limited measure.”

Europe’s state pension plans are rife with special provisions. In Germany, employees of the government make no pension contributions. In the U.K., pensioners get an extra winter payment for heating. In France, manual laborers or those who work night shifts, such as bakers, can start their benefits early without penalty.

Across Europe, the birthrate has fallen 40% since the 1960s to around 1.5 children per woman, according to the United Nations. In that time, life expectancies have risen to roughly 80 from 69.

In 2012, the Polish government launched a series of changes in its main national pension plan to make it more affordable. One was a gradual rise in the age to receive benefits. It will reach 67 by 2040, marking an increase of 12 years for women and seven for men. The changes mean the main pension plan now is financially sustainable, said Jacek Rostowski, a former finance minister and architect of the overhaul.

The party that enacted the changes lost an election in October, however, and a central promise of the winning party is to undo them. Recently, Poland’s president introduced a bill to reverse some of the measures. “You have to take care of people, of their dignity, not finances,” said Krzysztof Jurgiel, agriculture minister in the current Law & Justice Party government.

The implication is that Germany, Italy, Spain, France et al are functionally bankrupt, apparently (amazingly) by choice. They saw the avalanche coming decades ago and instead of getting out of the way or reinforcing their chalets, simply sat there watching the snow roll down the mountain. It will be arriving shortly, and they’re still debating what — if anything — to do about it. 

In fact the only thing that can be reasonably described as preparation is the decision to ramp up immigration. This might have worked if Europe had chosen more compatible immigrants, but that’s a subject for a different column. For now let’s focus on insanely stupid choice number one, which is to offer entitlements with no funding mechanism other than future tax revenue. If an insurance company or corporate pension plan did something like that its executives would be led away in handcuffs — rightfully so, since the essence of such deferred-payout entities is an account that starts small and grows to sufficient size as its beneficiaries begin to need it. 

So what the Europeans have aren’t actually pensions, but a form of election fraud designed to give an entire generation of politicians the ability to offer free money to voters without consequence. 

Soon, a whole continent will be left with no choice but to devalue its currency to hide the magnitude of its mismanagement. The math will work like this: devalue the euro by 50% while raising pension payouts by 20%, thus cutting the real burden significantly — while taking credit for the nominal benefit increase at election time. It might work, based on the level of voter credulity displayed so far. 

Now here’s where it gets really interesting. The US “trust funds” that have been created to guarantee Social Security and Medicare are full of Treasury bonds, the interest on which is paid from — you guessed it — taxes levied each year on US citizens. So the only real difference between the European pay-as-you-go and US trust fund models is that the former is more honest. 

This is why gold bugs and other sound money people are so certain that precious metals will soon be a lot more valuable. The pension numbers are catastrophic everywhere and the reckoning that was once merely inevitable is now imminent. Europe is a little further along demographically and so might have to devalue its currency first, but $80 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities can’t be denied. We’ll be following along shortly.

Bob Hoye: Emerging Bonds: Topping!

Screen Shot 2016-03-27 at 10.43.25 AM

Rogers said that he bought the ruble bonds because they have a much higher yield than Eurobonds denominated in dollars or euros; he declined to say how many of the bonds he bought.

in addition to Russia, he is also seeking to invest in Kazakhstan, Iran and China, if there is a fall in China’s stock market.

….read more HERE

 

Peter Schiff: Two Down – Two to Go

llsllaThe Federal Reserve’s years-long campaign to sheepishly back away from its own policy forecasts continued in earnest last week when it officially reduced the four expected 2016 quarter point hikes, suggested back in December, to just two. Given the deteriorating economic outlook, I believe there can be little doubt that the Fed will soon complete the capitulation process and remove all expectations for additional hikes this year. Even before that happens, savvy observers should have already concluded that the Federal Reserve is stuck in the monetary mud just as firmly now as it has been since the dawn of the financial crisis back in 2008.
Rather than actively voicing its retreat in either its March policy statement or in Chairwoman Janet Yellen’s press conference, the market-moving policy shift was buried in the minutia of the Fed’s “dot plot” information array, in which each voting committee member signals their assumptions of where interest rates will be in various points in the future. Those tea leaves needed to be read to reach the conclusion that policy just got significantly  more dovish. But despite the Fed’s soft peddling, the policy shift made an immediate impact on markets, with the dollar getting hit by a variety of rival currencies and gold (and more significantly gold miners) climbing to multi-month highs.
 
But perhaps the greatest casualty of the announcement was the Fed’s own credibility, which is now being stretched to the limit. At Yellen’s press conference last Wednesday, CNBC reporter Steve Liesman, who has perhaps been one of the most reliable supporters of the Fed’s policies, seemed to indicate that even he had grown weary of the Fed’s prevarications, saying to Chairman Yellen: “Does the Fed have a credibility problem in the sense that it says it will do one thing under certain conditions, but doesn’t end up doing it? And…if the current conditions are not sufficient for the Fed to raise rates,…what would those conditions ever look like?”
 
Yellen’s response was measured and lengthy, but what it really boiled down to was, “Steve, why have you taken our prior forecasts at face value? We never actually offered firm commitments on anything.  Nor did we specifically endorse the things that we seemed to have said. And just so you know, you should expect that the things we are saying now will ‘fully evolve’ over time as well.” Or in plain English: “Steve, don’t you know by now that we have no idea what we are talking about, that our forecasts are just guesses, and since we normally guess wrong, why should you expect greater accuracy now? If anything, it should be obvious that our guesses are biased in favor of stronger growth, as the intention is for those rosy forecasts to positively influence sentiment, thereby helping to obscure the problems that, for political reasons, we are hesitant to acknowledge”.
 
Talk is cheap, and the Fed buys it by the bushel. But when it comes time to actually do something, it is nowhere in sight. In voicing his frustration, Liesman pointed out that core inflation has gone up the past two months (in fact, it has already breached the Fed’s 2% target), that the jobs report was strong (in fact, the economy is creating 200,000 plus jobs per month), and that the GDP tracking forecast has returned to two percent. And while I have explained on many occasions why those data points are all misleading to the upside, Yellen has made no such qualifications. The growing chasm between what the Fed says it is going to do and what it is actually doing is getting increasingly hard for the mainstream to swallow. When it stops going down at all, a market shift of considerable proportions could begin in earnest.
 
One of the data points that Yellen likes to cling to most fiercely are the reports that show consumers are confident that the economy has improved and that it will continue to do so. But those reports, which I have always believed are poorly constructed, are completely at odds with what voters (who are also consumers) are actually saying at the polls. Presidential primary exit polls in state after state indicate that the economy has been the top issue on the minds of voters. Generally speaking, this should indicate that people are not overly optimistic about the economy. If they were, other issues, such as immigration, national security, the environment, and health care, would be cited as their top concern.
 
The big surprise this primary season has been the rise of Donald Trump among Republicans and Bernie Sanders among Democrats. Voters aren’t choosing Trump because they like his hair or Sanders because they like his glasses. Both are considered insurgents in their respective parties. They represent change and their popularity should be seen as a sign of deeply-seated economic uncertainty in voters rather than confidence. If confidence were high, candidates more closely aligned with the status quo should be on top.
 
According to both the Fed and its economic lapdogs on Wall Street, one of the few other bright spots in the economy is the fact that inflation is finally starting to ramp up noticeably. Last week it was revealed that the core Consumer Price Index (CPI) had risen 2.3% from the year earlier (Bureau of Labor Statistics), thereby eclipsing the Fed’s long-sought 2% target. The economists argue that rising prices will soon lead to rising wages. Yes, consumers are paying more for rent, insurance, food and healthcare, but the long-sought wage increases have yet to materialize. For obvious reasons, consumers tend to avoid celebration if their bills go up and their pay does not.
Higher prices may be the leading reason why consumers are not spending at the expected pace. Last month, economists cheered when January retail sales came in at up .2% for the month (up if you excluded autos and gasoline), according to Commerce Department data. In fact, the Atlanta Fed cited these numbers when boosting its annualized 1st quarter GDP forecast to 2.7% (since revised back down to 1.9%) (FRB Atlanta). But, last week we were told that the January retail sales number was revised way down to negative .4% from the positive .2%. Excluding autos and gasoline, the numbers went down from up .4% to down .1% in February. I don’t recall ever seeing larger retail sales revisions to the downside. But because the revisions were so large, the February numbers could be viewed as positive even though they were way below the pre-revision January numbers. 
 
The slowing sales, in turn, are leading to a dangerous increase in business inventories as unsold goods accumulate on shelves. The inventory-to-sales ratio now stands at 1.4, the highest it has been since May 2009, when the nation was in the midst of the Great Recession. In fact, it has never been this high at times when the economy was not in recession. Similarly, data revisions released last week also indicate that we may ultimately post a full year 2015 current account deficit of $481 billion, the biggest number since the recession year of 2008. If interest rates go up, that deficit could grow significantly worse. The industrial production numbers are also on a downward spiral. Recent data show declines for four straight months, the first time since 1952 that this has occurred without the U.S. being in recession. But if we are already in recession, which I expect we are, then at least that statement will no longer be true.  
 
All this adds up to a nearly inescapable trap for the Fed. The economy is weakening while inflation is strengthening. In the meantime, asset prices, which have become the bedrock of any remaining economic confidence, are extremely vulnerable to an interest rate increase.
 
As a result, we should expect continued jawboning and inaction from the Fed. All it can do is pray that the economy heats up so it can finally do what it has long promised. But if we keep scraping along the bottom like we have, or go further into the danger zone, look for the Fed to take away those remaining two promised hikes just as easily as it did the first two. The last thing the Fed can bear is for a recession that may be bubbling just under the surface to boil over into full view in the months heading into the election. If that occurs, we all may be seeing a great many press conferences from Mar-a-Lago. That is a development that I’m sure Janet Yellen wants to avoid at all costs.
 
Subscribe to Euro Pacific’s Weekly Digest: Receive all commentaries by Peter Schiff, John Browne, and other Euro Pacific commentators delivered to your inbox every Monday!

Marc Faber – Dire Warning for America

Unknown“This is for the first time in recorded human history from the times of Babylon up to today that we have negative interest rates,” Faber said. “And it’s not gonna end well, that I can tell you.” Dr Marc faber told Yahoo Finance 
“the magicians at central banks they always come out with a new trick” to avoid a potential economic collapse, adding that he believes “it would have been better to let the crisis—already the first one in the 2000s—run its course and prevent the colossal credit bubble that was built up.”

….listen to the 5 minute interview on Bloomberg HERE